B&B is the Stones in transition and at their most experimental. You start with James Brown funk (Hot Stuff), move into reggae (Co, their own kinda funk (Negrita), and cocktail jazz (Melody), in addition to the usual mix of rockers and ballads. While it doesn't always work (can't stand CoB, Melody, and Fool to Cry), I like it a whole lot better than the two that preceded it!

Quote
baxlap
B&B is the Stones in transition and at their most experimental. You start with James Brown funk (Hot Stuff), move into reggae (Co, their own kinda funk (Negrita), and cocktail jazz (Melody), in addition to the usual mix of rockers and ballads. While it doesn't always work (can't stand CoB, Melody, and Fool to Cry), I like it a whole lot better than the two that preceded it!

I don't think it has a single song with the emotional depth of "100 Years", "Winter" or "Coming Down Again" from GHS, so I can't see how it's better than that one. It's paint-by-number Stones songs, which were still pretty good at the time, and there are a lot of mid-70s keyboard and guitar sounds that haven't aged very well...But we're never going to solve this here - those who love it, love it. Still fun to debate it.

paint-by-numbers Stones? I thought the main complaint against the album was that it wasn't traditional enough, diluted Stones. I like the album for its adventurousness, though naturally many of the directions are gone in half-assed.

Quote
71Tele
I don't think it has a single song with the emotional depth of "100 Years", "Winter" or "Coming Down Again" from GHS, so I can't see how it's better than that one.

I beg to disagree here. I think "Hand of Fate" has as much emotional depth as those GHS ballads but it is expressed in different way, using a rocker as a vehicle. The story it tells is whatever western romantics but that's not the point; it is the expression that matters; Keith's down to earth, a bit lazy rhythm work sets the tone from the first sec, and the band over-all sounds relaxed and even contemplative, while Jagger's broken interpretation ices the cake. The song sets certain kind of mood that I find very unique in Stones repertuare. Even with faster "Crazy Mama" has this a bit odd feeling and mood in it. I also find the ballads "Memoery Motel" and "Fool to Cry" as emotionally deep as GHS ballads even though they are not probably so musically rich and lyrical as them. But for example, I think Mick and Keith's duet in "Memory Motel" is one of the finest ever as far the power of experession goes, especially Keith's "She's got a mind of her own" part nails me always when I listen to it. Like I said in my earlier post is the maturity - a rare quality, right? - that sets the GHS and B&B to the category of their own in Stones catalog.

It is no wonder that the richness of TATTOO YOU is very much to do with transporting the reflective songs from GHS and B&B sessions into it. That gives the depth TY has in its famous B-side.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-24 09:55 by Doxa.

Doxa, i like the term 'maturity' which you use in you analysis of both Goats Head Soup and Black And Blue, and also your reference in regards to Tattoo You with its sound being influenced by those albums outtakes which of course is dead right. I called it the 'big fat sound' earlier which was a term i read somewhere in one of the reviews of Black And Blue - it could just as easily be called musical sophistication also, which perhaps was something which was lost around the late seventies period. One could also attribute it to the full time introduction of Ronnie, where perhaps the maturity and sophistication gave way to a much lighter touch within the Stones sound, although hidden beneath those surface changes, the lack of focus post Some Girls still remained, but not in such a heavy handed way perhaps. The strange paradox for me is Some Girls is in many ways a stronger and more focused piece of work, yet the musical elements i tend to enjoy within the Stones sound the most aren't to be found there, but they are in abundance on Black And Blue. I even prefer the relatively poor Emotional Rescue to Some Girls because i enjoy the album's mild experimentation and more varied changes of direction more.

The actual songs on the second side of Tattoo You really aren't exceptional overall (with maybe a couple of exceptions) but it tends to be the sophistication of these songs which prove so appealing (the musicianship and production).

I agree with 71 Tele that Goats Head Soup hits the mark more consistently than Black And Blue, yet Doxa you pick some fine examples especially with Hand Of Fate and Fool To Cry where they are comparable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-24 10:41 by Edward Twining.

This is based on reflection of some themes said in this thread - sorry if this going too OT, or is more SOME GIRLS-oriented than B&B (I hate starting new threads..)

When something new is created, something old needs to be destroyed. I think that is the truth of Pathe Marconi sessions in Paris that produced an era and sound of its own. What is peculiar in BLACK AND BLUE is that it represents the last pre-Pathe marconi-era Stones. There is quite a big change in music and sound between it and SOME GIRLS. Just compare the rocker section: "Hand of Fate" to "When The Whip Comes Down": it is the contemplative, dark, bluesy sound contrast to cheerfulness, joyful attitude.

I've thinking the change in terms of the band being first facing maturity,and then getting out of the hook - back to teenager rock'n'roll. In B&B tehy sound like having realized that they - actually - are old farts belonging to an older genaration of rock stars now (whose 'cultural function' sound a bit odd). There is that "sophistication" Edward talks about; the mid-70's Rolling Stones was musically very sophisticated group. (The term "big fat sound" is also a good one). They might lack some focus and direction but they had the means perfected. That's also the legacy of Mick Taylor years. B&B still more sounds like Taylor-functioning Stones; different guitarists with different results just stunting him. The flirting with new musical styles - funk, reggae - sounds a bit forced to be called convincing. The songs sound goddamn fine, even awesome in their best, but some spark - over-all- is missing.

I have started to think that the "punk challenge" not kicked their asses - like the old "official" rock history says - but it actually helped the Stones. It offered an easy way out of some sort of musical frustration. Jagger found a new persona out of that decadent, hedonist rock god character he had perfected and almost killed to death in 1975/76 tours. He found that ironical boyish Jagger who does not need to grow up ever. Musically they lowered their standards - what might have been júst a few yaers earlier a sign of total unprofessionalism, was now almost a value of its own. They were allowed to play like they once did before their professional years. Just by intuition and "see whst happens" attitude, and "let's edit it later if something worthwile is there". The songs were to be born out of endless jam sessions, very much together with the birth of the "ancient art of weaving". Million meters of tape. The result was, of course, SOME GIRLS that was mostly based on these two-three chord one-track mind rockers that were played with a new approach. The Stones actually have had difficulties in the recent years how to perfect their ever-important constitutive central-section - the chuckeberry-based rockers (who would have not after EXILE?) With GOATS HEAD SOAP they tried to find new, more melodic directions, and "Star Star" is almost a joke of the old formula, the rockers of IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL sound uninspired and forced, "Hand of Fate" and "Crazy Mama" took the more dark, bluesy groove and the band sounds like elder statemen of rock: "been there, done that".

But as I see it, the punk offered a licence to play young man's music again. Jagger took the bite or a chance, and it didn't much to convince Keith "yaeh, you can play Chuck Berry riffs now as much as you can if we a bit revise them", and Woodie was there to assist. It was no dark anyomre - no black and blue - but fun and jokes. All a tongue-in-cheek. Jagger sounded very inspired, and SOME GIRLS might be his greatest effort ever as a song writer ever, especially in lyrics section. (The simple fast rockers a'la "Respectable" and "Whip" and "Lies" or more bluesy "Some Girls" or rauncy "Shattered") might give the album its feel but what makes it an awesome album is the fact having some outstanding songs in it: "Miss You", "Faraway Eyes", "Beast of BUrden", "Before They Make Me Run". It looks like in the midde of those endless jams and "faster faster faster!" commands, the guys found their creative muse to come up with gems like that.)

Anyways, the Pathe Marconi sessions produced a new sound of the band, and it looks like it diverses the opinions quite a lot in this board. I love it, but I can understand why some people view it as "thin" or "flat" or "immediate". I also sometimes feel that maybe the direction they took then was a bit "cheap", even though it perhaps saved their career. This is especially true when I listen the 'mature' or 'sophisticated' sounds of BLACK AND BLUE. But then I put SOME GIRLS, or HANDSOME GIRLS, get myself a drink, and reflect "the best Stones yet"...

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-24 12:45 by Doxa.

Great analyisis,Doxa! I'll chime in, couldn't say it any better!

albums with only 1 tune, does prince's lovesexy count? the cd only had 1 track listed. you had to listen to the album all the way through everytime

B&B is one the their best album. an anthology of blues, soul, funky,reggae, r'n,r,, ballads that only the stones can offer.
no springsteen, beatles, tom petty led zepp etc etc could do something similar

i like the overall sound of B&B, crisp and clear. 'hand of fate' is one of my favorite stones songs ever, musically and lyrically. keith's riff is classic and wayne perkin's solo rips.

'hot stuff' reminds me of the aerosmith 'walk this way' riff, but slower. much much MUCH better opener than the ridiculous 'dancing with mr. d'

'hey negrita' has a great hook and riff

'melody' has a great back and forth (w/ billy preston) and is a piano thing sort of reminiscent of 'coming down again'..and I like it better than 'fool to cry' (which is still a good song) in the ballad department

'memory motel' is another all time favorite; for me only 'Cherry' doesn't make the cut

'crazy mama' ends the record with the same sleazy splendor that 'starf*cker' did with GHS. i think it's great.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-24 18:59 by stones77.

Quote
keefriffhard4life
albums with only 1 tune, does prince's lovesexy count? the cd only had 1 track listed. you had to listen to the album all the way through everytime

No Lovesexy doesn't count, it was a bunch of songs. Prince didn't divide it into the CD into tracks because he had conceived a selection of songs that he wanted played in their entirety in the same order every time. Without track divides, Lovesexy was useless in the shuttle play function of CD changers, and one could not skip any songs or change their order of presentation.

It was his work, and you had to listen to it on his terms. A wee bit of a control freak, but I admire his uncompromising nature on this one.

Quote
Doxa
This is based on reflection of some themes said in this thread - sorry if this going too OT, or is more SOME GIRLS-oriented than B&B (I hate starting new threads..)

When something new is created, something old needs to be destroyed. I think that is the truth of Pathe Marconi sessions in Paris that produced an era and sound of its own. What is peculiar in BLACK AND BLUE is that it represents the last pre-Pathe marconi-era Stones. There is quite a big change in music and sound between it and SOME GIRLS. Just compare the rocker section: "Hand of Fate" to "When The Whip Comes Down": it is the contemplative, dark, bluesy sound contrast to cheerfulness, joyful attitude.

I've thinking the change in terms of the band being first facing maturity,and then getting out of the hook - back to teenager rock'n'roll. In B&B tehy sound like having realized that they - actually - are old farts belonging to an older genaration of rock stars now (whose 'cultural function' sound a bit odd). There is that "sophistication" Edward talks about; the mid-70's Rolling Stones was musically very sophisticated group. (The term "big fat sound" is also a good one). They might lack some focus and direction but they had the means perfected. That's also the legacy of Mick Taylor years. B&B still more sounds like Taylor-functioning Stones; different guitarists with different results just stunting him. The flirting with new musical styles - funk, reggae - sounds a bit forced to be called convincing. The songs sound goddamn fine, even awesome in their best, but some spark - over-all- is missing.

I have started to think that the "punk challenge" not kicked their asses - like the old "official" rock history says - but it actually helped the Stones. It offered an easy way out of some sort of musical frustration. Jagger found a new persona out of that decadent, hedonist rock god character he had perfected and almost killed to death in 1975/76 tours. He found that ironical boyish Jagger who does not need to grow up ever. Musically they lowered their standards - what might have been júst a few yaers earlier a sign of total unprofessionalism, was now almost a value of its own. They were allowed to play like they once did before their professional years. Just by intuition and "see whst happens" attitude, and "let's edit it later if something worthwile is there". The songs were to be born out of endless jam sessions, very much together with the birth of the "ancient art of weaving". Million meters of tape. The result was, of course, SOME GIRLS that was mostly based on these two-three chord one-track mind rockers that were played with a new approach. The Stones actually have had difficulties in the recent years how to perfect their ever-important constitutive central-section - the chuckeberry-based rockers (who would have not after EXILE?) With GOATS HEAD SOAP they tried to find new, more melodic directions, and "Star Star" is almost a joke of the old formula, the rockers of IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL sound uninspired and forced, "Hand of Fate" and "Crazy Mama" took the more dark, bluesy groove and the band sounds like elder statemen of rock: "been there, done that".

But as I see it, the punk offered a licence to play young man's music again. Jagger took the bite or a chance, and it didn't much to convince Keith "yaeh, you can play Chuck Berry riffs now as much as you can if we a bit revise them", and Woodie was there to assist. It was no dark anyomre - no black and blue - but fun and jokes. All a tongue-in-cheek. Jagger sounded very inspired, and SOME GIRLS might be his greatest effort ever as a song writer ever, especially in lyrics section. (The simple fast rockers a'la "Respectable" and "Whip" and "Lies" or more bluesy "Some Girls" or rauncy "Shattered") might give the album its feel but what makes it an awesome album is the fact having some outstanding songs in it: "Miss You", "Faraway Eyes", "Beast of BUrden", "Before They Make Me Run". It looks like in the midde of those endless jams and "faster faster faster!" commands, the guys found their creative muse to come up with gems like that.)

Anyways, the Pathe Marconi sessions produced a new sound of the band, and it looks like it diverses the opinions quite a lot in this board. I love it, but I can understand why some people view it as "thin" or "flat" or "immediate". I also sometimes feel that maybe the direction they took then was a bit "cheap", even though it perhaps saved their career. This is especially true when I listen the 'mature' or 'sophisticated' sounds of BLACK AND BLUE. But then I put SOME GIRLS, or HANDSOME GIRLS, get myself a drink, and reflect "the best Stones yet"...

- Doxa

Very good analysis. I was trying to explain to kleermaker why I like Some Girls so much, and it's the sense of joy and fun (in contrast to the heaviness of the previous records) that does it for me. They were following a certain template up until B&B, and whatever one thinks of that record, they could not go any further with it.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
71Tele
I don't think it has a single song with the emotional depth of "100 Years", "Winter" or "Coming Down Again" from GHS, so I can't see how it's better than that one.

I beg to disagree here. I think "Hand of Fate" has as much emotional depth as those GHS ballads but it is expressed in different way, using a rocker as a vehicle. The story it tells is whatever western romantics but that's not the point; it is the expression that matters; Keith's down to earth, a bit lazy rhythm work sets the tone from the first sec, and the band over-all sounds relaxed and even contemplative, while Jagger's broken interpretation ices the cake. The song sets certain kind of mood that I find very unique in Stones repertuare. Even with faster "Crazy Mama" has this a bit odd feeling and mood in it. I also find the ballads "Memoery Motel" and "Fool to Cry" as emotionally deep as GHS ballads even though they are not probably so musically rich and lyrical as them. But for example, I think Mick and Keith's duet in "Memory Motel" is one of the finest ever as far the power of experession goes, especially Keith's "She's got a mind of her own" part nails me always when I listen to it. Like I said in my earlier post is the maturity - a rare quality, right? - that sets the GHS and B&B to the category of their own in Stones catalog.

It is no wonder that the richness of TATTOO YOU is very much to do with transporting the reflective songs from GHS and B&B sessions into it. That gives the depth TY has in its famous B-side.

- Doxa

We do disagree here, you're right. I think "Fool To Cry" and "Memory Motel" started a phase of rather mannered Jagger vocal and lyrical performances. I think those ballads are contrived in a way that "Winter" and "100 Years Ago" were not. The latter two songs came from a place of deep feeling, where the B&B ballads seem to me to have been written more "from the surface" emotionally. As a songwriter, I explain it like this: A song can "come" to you (those are usually the best) or you can write using craft. A skilled songwriter can create a song even where there is no emotional basis (Paul McCartney is a good example), where other songwriters (think Leonard Cohen for one) write from a deep well of emotion. It doesn't mean that the "crafted" songs are not good or enjoyable. I just think it's the difference between the GHS ballads and the B&B ones. So while I can enjoy the performances of "Memory Motel" and "Fool To Cry", I am not emotionally moved by either one.

I still have to read Doxa's 'analysis' or 'review'. I will have to take a deep breath because it's a bit lengthy and I'm an impatient kind of guy.

But as for joy and fun in music: I HATE that. 'Funny' or humorous or cheerful music is fun for at most a couple of month and then I never listen to it again. That's simply not good music per se. It's the absolute antithesis of blues etc. Not my cup of tea in a million years. It simply should be forbidden to be written/composed and certainly to be played. Fun music, it's a synonym for contradictio in terminis. Horrific.

Quote
kleermaker
I still have to read Doxa's 'analysis' or 'review'. I will have to take a deep breath because it's a bit lengthy and I'm an impatient kind of guy.

But as for joy and fun in music: I HATE that. 'Funny' or humorous or cheerful music is fun for at most a couple of month and then I never listen to it again. That's simply not good music per se. It's the absolute antithesis of blues etc. Not my cup of tea in a million years. It simply should be forbidden to be written/composed and certainly to be played. Fun music, it's a synonym for contradictio in terminis. Horrific.

Well, that's certainly an interesting viewpoint, and explains your antipathy to Some Girls. Do you also accept only dark colors in painting?

Quote
71Tele

Quote
kleermaker
I still have to read Doxa's 'analysis' or 'review'. I will have to take a deep breath because it's a bit lengthy and I'm an impatient kind of guy.

But as for joy and fun in music: I HATE that. 'Funny' or humorous or cheerful music is fun for at most a couple of month and then I never listen to it again. That's simply not good music per se. It's the absolute antithesis of blues etc. Not my cup of tea in a million years. It simply should be forbidden to be written/composed and certainly to be played. Fun music, it's a synonym for contradictio in terminis. Horrific.

Well, that's certainly an interesting viewpoint, and explains your antipathy to Some Girls. Do you also accept only dark colors in painting?

Tele, it wouldn't be wise to answer that question because it answers itself. But I hate funny and cheerful paintings as well, just like I hate such 'literature' or movies or theatre etc. Art is per se not funny and cheerful. And certainly not one dimensional (thus flat), fresh, immediate etc., exactly all the qualifications one can ascribe to SG.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
71Tele

Quote
kleermaker
I still have to read Doxa's 'analysis' or 'review'. I will have to take a deep breath because it's a bit lengthy and I'm an impatient kind of guy.

But as for joy and fun in music: I HATE that. 'Funny' or humorous or cheerful music is fun for at most a couple of month and then I never listen to it again. That's simply not good music per se. It's the absolute antithesis of blues etc. Not my cup of tea in a million years. It simply should be forbidden to be written/composed and certainly to be played. Fun music, it's a synonym for contradictio in terminis. Horrific.

Well, that's certainly an interesting viewpoint, and explains your antipathy to Some Girls. Do you also accept only dark colors in painting?

Tele, it wouldn't be wise to answer that question because it answers itself. But I hate funny and cheerful paintings as well, just like I hate such 'literature' or movies or theatre etc. Art is per se not funny and cheerful. And certainly not one dimensional (thus flat), fresh, immediate etc., exactly all the qualifications one can ascribe to SG.

"Art" should reflect life. And sometimes life is fun and cheerful. I tend to side with you most of the time but sometimes we have to lighten up.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
71Tele

Quote
kleermaker
I still have to read Doxa's 'analysis' or 'review'. I will have to take a deep breath because it's a bit lengthy and I'm an impatient kind of guy.

But as for joy and fun in music: I HATE that. 'Funny' or humorous or cheerful music is fun for at most a couple of month and then I never listen to it again. That's simply not good music per se. It's the absolute antithesis of blues etc. Not my cup of tea in a million years. It simply should be forbidden to be written/composed and certainly to be played. Fun music, it's a synonym for contradictio in terminis. Horrific.

Well, that's certainly an interesting viewpoint, and explains your antipathy to Some Girls. Do you also accept only dark colors in painting?

Tele, it wouldn't be wise to answer that question because it answers itself. But I hate funny and cheerful paintings as well, just like I hate such 'literature' or movies or theatre etc. Art is per se not funny and cheerful. And certainly not one dimensional (thus flat), fresh, immediate etc., exactly all the qualifications one can ascribe to SG.

"Art" should reflect life. And sometimes life is fun and cheerful. I tend to side with you most of the time but sometimes we have to lighten up.

Yeah, sometimes. But in the strict sense of the word. So not almost all the time, like on SG. The joy of life is melancholy, sadness, etc., not joy itself. That seems paradoxal and maybe it is, but it is certainly true. Nothing as boring as fun all the time. Avoid it as much as possible.

i still listen to it

On second thoughts: I don't think "Art should reflect life". Life doesn't need to be reflected. Life 'an sich' is enough. Art has another function, or other functions than reflecting life.

regardless of whether one agrees with Doxa's conclusions about the relative merits of the albums, it's valuable to consider what he point about where the albums were recorded, and under what circumstances. I think these tend to be more important in defining the "eras" than the 2nd guitar player. So Some Girls is a watershed in part for starting a run at Pathe Marconi that lasts through Undercover (though some of ER was recorded in the Bahamas, wasn't it?). Likewise, one of the threads of continuity between Satanic Majesties and Beggars Banquet is their being recorded at Olympic, which is the case from Buttons through roughly Sticky Fingers. This would leave Exile through Black and Blue as the itinerant, cosmopolitan, "wherever, man" phase of recording.

unfortunately, almost no one from the "Beggars Banquet - WTF?" thread seems to be reading this thread. Strange disconnection sometimes on here.

Doxa, I just read your view on SG, its coming into being, its relation to B&B and even GHS etc. etc. I picked one sentence from your post: "Jagger (...) and SOME GIRLS might be his greatest effort ever as a song writer ever, especially in lyrics section." I could counter that statement with another lengthy review but I don't think that's needed. It suffices to say that I couldn't disagree more on this sentence.

Imo they simply set about in the wrong way with SG. It already started with the coöperation with Ronnie during the IORR-sessions, resulting in IORR's title song. It's Only Rock and Roll But I Like It: that should have been the title of the SG-album. SG marks the beginning of the end, TY only being a temporary postponement.

Quote
71Tele
Take off "Melody" and perhaps "Cherry", add "Worried About You" and "Slave" and you would have had close to a classic Stones album - or at least a stronger one.

Oh My God, Tele - that's so true! Meldoy and Cherry are my least favourite off of this album, but Hot Stuff, Hand of Fate, Hey Negrita and Crazy Mama always pump me up and get me in a great mood!!!

I do love this album over-all, almost as much as I love Goats Head Soup! I find myself listening to those two far more than Some Girls or It's Only Rock and Roll. B&B, Goats and Tattoo You are my favourite post-Exile albums without a doubt. I mean, Some Girls is great for what it is - the band sure sounds like they're enjoying it, but is does sound rather flat and tinny. Every song on Some Girls, though, has sounded much better in live versions over the years.

[thepowergoats.com]

I love your posts, Doxa, because they are so thoughtful and well balanced and i agree pretty much with what you are saying. Yes, of course Black And Blue is almost a Mick Taylor era Stones album, certainly within its sophisticated style and more mature/heavy mood musical setting but i was being rather tactful in not mentioning that view too explicitly and running the risk of turning the thread into another Taylor v Wood debate. However, i'm still not too sure the change in style with Some Girls really has that much to do with the introduction of Wood. It is interesting you should mention the more humorous aspects to the sound of Some Girls, the tongue in cheek elements so to speak, because i believe it is those elements that helped to make the album more accessible to a larger and more contemporary audience, especially after the advent of punk, and the punks declaration of the lack of need for those self indulgent rock dinosaurs (especially in terms of the prog rockers and their musical viruosity). Punk was all about reaching to the youth in a more primitive way, in pretty much all respects, even though i always believed it to be rather superficial ultimately, and the Stones lightening up and being less musically sophisticated was their way of rising to the challenge, so in the context of the times perhaps Some Girls may have been a lifesaver, certainly in terms of raising the Stones credibility for just a couple more years (until Emotional Rescue). However, in the cold light of day over 30 years on, i believe there are few songs off Some Girls that are more than just mere reactions of its time, and the songs you singled out in your post - "Miss You", "Faraway Eyes", "Beast of Burden", "Before They Make Me Run", maybe the only ones that have a chance of truly surviving on a larger scale, and even then not in the way that the best of their previous work has managed to do. I agree with kleermaker ultimately, that Some Girls was a case of the Stones dumming down, especially if taken out of the context of its era. However, it served a purpose at that time.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-25 10:46 by Edward Twining.

Doxa and Edward, I love the lengthy posts of both of you - which are imo a fine combination of analysis, review and personal opinion - because they're thoughtful, well balanced and well written and also because I often disagree on the important points you both make. I know it's sometimes nice to read something you agree on, but only like-minded posts wouldn't add anything to my own ideas. That said I must not forget to say that I love Tele's input and that of some others in the discussion as well for practically the same reasons.

As for the songs from SG, mentioned by both Doxa and Edward (Miss You, Faraway Eyes, Beast of Burden, Before They Make Me Run), I have to say that I only agree on the latter two as for especially Edward's comment in his last post here (last three lines).

Edward, I agree with you that SG as you voiced it "served a purpose at that time". But I'm inclined to say that it did serve a wrong purpose.

Kleermaker, your revealing posts of how you see art "an sich", and what you say about the "joy" element in art, gives me a key to interpret the Stones history. It looks like the Stones (pre-Vegas) history can be divided into three big eras.

(1) The first is the early era from 1963 to 1967, the 'pop era', the anti-Beatles-years, the Stonemania years. That is a period of enthusiasism, young energy and joy. The time of big single years. It was basically just all fun (until the Redlands bust etc. when the things started to get difficult). The "rebel" image was a part of good PR work, and the music in its darkest moments was basically just young angst and frustration commercially nice expressed, mostly innocent. "Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby?", indeed. I would say AFTERMATH is the quintessential album of this era.

(2) There is the 'dark' period from "Jumpin' Jack Flash" to BLACK AND BLUE (and LOVE YOU LIVE): the years of professionalism and sophistication: the big four, Taylor, Altamont, Nellcote... By most accounts this includes the best era, the Stones at their peak. For many this is "the greatest rock'n'roll band of the world", live starting from the sharp and tight 1969 American tour and ending up to decadency the of 1975/76 tour.

(3) Then there is the 'neo-Stones' era: covering the Pathe Marconi sessions from SOME GIRLS to UNDERCOVER, the 1978, 1981/82 tours. The punk challenge; the time of "ancient art of weaving", tongue-in-cheek, the funny Jagger: the 1978 ironical punk version, 1981/82 postmodern jogging version. For many lovers of the (2) era, this was almost a cheap, ridicule version of the band going theatrics and sloppy playing. But for millions (?) new fans it was a call of seirene; "Miss You", "Start Me Up", a whole new version and idea of what The Rolling Stones is all about. Of course, I'm one of those.

(As one can figure out, I have tentatively left out the idea of diving the eras according to certain guitar players, because I think it is misleading or too one-dimensional or simple way to make sense of the development of their music.)

In a way I think for the people who love the (3) era, the era (1) is perhaps easier to reach than for those more familiar with (2). Those two eras have surprisingly much similarities with each other. It's the same joyful energy and not so professional attitude - approach more than skills - that matters. As far the attitude and sort of light-heartness goes, SOME GIRLS is more home with the positive vibes of AFTERMATH than with the deep, dark sounds of BEGGARS BANQUET or EXILE ON MAIN STREET. The ironical 'punk' Jagger of 1978 is not so far from the Singin Sixties young cute and innocent rebel who was singing about "little yellow pills" and "stupid girls". The dark, dangerous figure of "Sympathy For The DEvil", PERFORMANCE, the jetsetting superstar and the hedonist role model of "sex, drugs and rock and roll" of the 70's is absent. The jogging version of 1981/82 tour made the distance to the 'old devil' even further.

If we look more closer the new-self identity of 'neo-Stones'; in 1978 the Stones practised themselves a new 'punk' material. In 1981, the new material was combined with pre-JJF (second era) songs. STILL LIFE album is a testimony of a neo-Stones approach: all of its songs do belong to (1) and (3) eras - there is not a single song from the second 'dark' era at all! (A funny detail is that it starts and finishes with the same songs as the ancient GOT LIVE IF YOU WANT IT! once did.)

What I try to say? I don't know. I just somehow try to grasp the different views towards the Stones, especially by people like Kleermaker, Amsterdamned, 71Tele and other great contributors here who are rather critical towards what I have called 'neo-Stones era'. I am a fan belonging to "Start Me Up"-generation who first was fallen love the third era version of it. As funny as it might sound now, it was more natural then to go straight to era one; at that time - early 80's - the whole musical or cultural era from late 60's to mid-seventies was not in such a high value at all - to say it roughly, we "post-punk people" just hated the hippies and egoist way too pro musicians trying to take rock too seriously. The Stones of (1) and (3) era didn't have that problem. They were cool.

So my post contains a grain of criticism: even though the 'dark era' is the best of them all (or contains their most important works), the whole story of the Stones is much richer and larger than that one. There is more than one truth of this band, and what makes it great. And I think that is one of the most important qualities of this band: there is so much in them; in rock music they, literally, are larger than life.

- Doxa

P.S Should I really make a thread of its own?



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-25 23:51 by Doxa.

Doxa, i just think the Stones influences were richer and more potent prior to Some Girls, positive vibes aside. It is true that the foundation of Aftermath is perhaps more pop than on the Stones 68-72 output, yet the breadth and scope of the overall sound is truly amazing - harpsicord, dulcimer, marimbas, fuzz bass etc etc. all augment the album to create a very rich landscape and a very satisfying listening experience. Aftermath is a little patchy in places in terms of song quality, yet at the same time it is the Stones most expansive sounding album from those early years. Some Girls, if anything, with its limited scope is perhaps more reminiscent of the Stones self titled very first UK album release, which was also very fast and pacy, but even then those early songs tend to hit a lot harder with much greater energy. Listening to most of the Stones peak recordings (1968-72) and despite many of the songs being of varying styles they tend to all possess very deep musical roots, even when on the surface the songs can perhaps fit into a broad catagory. Even an early album like Out Of Our Heads has a very strong soul vibe. Somehow with Some Girls that was pretty much watered down, and although it wasn't necessarily for the first time, it was in terms of being for a sustained length of time. The problem with Some Girls is its diluted sound more than the fact it delivers a more positive vibe.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-26 01:03 by Edward Twining.

Doxa, to answer your PS-question: I don't think that's necessary. It's a bit pity that some threads are loose from each other (think of the GHS-thread and the Satanic-BB thread for example). They all hang together, even in different ways, but certainly if you're trying to "interpret the Stones history", which is a bold and difficult but very interesting undertaking.

Anyway, your survey is a good start and I will certainly reply more profoundly later. Now I suffice by saying that Aftermath is MUCH nearer to me than Some Girls, with which (as you already know) I almost have not any affinity at all. So my first remark is that I would rather associate phase 1 with phase 2 instead of phase 1 with phase 3 which is what you do. I'll explain later. So: Will be continued!

I think Doxa is a great writer; and I enjoy reading his or her stuff.

For me it all changed after 'Some Girls.'

Not musically so much; lets face it, the Stones are the Stones in that department. But the game changed, the business part of it changed. 'Some Girls' opened the band to the largest record buying demographic ever, and the sales appropriated that. After 'Some Girls', 'sales, ' 'demographics,' 'marketing,' stadiums and corporate sponsorship all that sort of anti-music bullsh*t took over.

'Look at the market Mick!.. get them to spend!'

That was the end right there. On one hand I can't blame them for that ..it's an opportunity any of us would be stupid to waste.

But, the other hand, you also get some sporadically good tunes sprinkled here and there and some genuinely heartfelt playing and singing once in a while; but overall - it's just riding the wave to the bank and back home again.

I love the Stones, but hey, I am also a f*ckin realist.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-07-26 01:17 by stones77.

Doxa, songs were recorded for the still life album from era 2 but were left off. still life is simply a cd or tape or vinyl version of the lets spend the night together concert film.